Support NeoGAF

[Risk Breaker]

Splinter Cell 2 wasn't great, neither was Hitman Contracts. Driver has had several turds, and so has Tomb Raider.

Not sure why I'd use those examples if I were you .

Yeah, Ace Combat is more appropriate. God is that Assault Horizon game looking bad... What is happening to my favorite franchises

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

Except for cinematic takedowns and enviromental takedowns, cover mechanics, set-piece shootouts and checkpoints. Not to mention how shitty IO treats veteran voice actors.

The only issue for me is the treatment of veteran voice actors. All those other things you mentioned can work well if IO does it well. Cinematic and environmental take downs can be awesome (I like the idea of using the environment against my enemies), a cover mechanic makes sense, for hiding and taking cover if you blow it, and set pieces can be awesome as long as they don't go super over the top and it's just a pacing thing, and checkpoints, well, as long as its handled well.

All the things you mentioned can be awesome if handled well.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Those answers actually made me feel better about the game, but I guess the title was inevitable since apparently the OP didn't realise that a game which rates you on your ability to kill your target undetected was a stealth game.

 

[MMaRsu]

Conviction is not really a bad game, it's problem is, is that it has Splinter Cell in it's name. There's already a lot of built in expectations to improve on Chaos Theory (or Double Agent, I guess :\) and make a great game out of it. Instead, they regressed and redid the gameplay mechanics and slapped the Splinter Cell name on it... insulting to those who loved the old SC games in the past.

Conviction is a pretty slick game, but stick another Tom Clancy universe on it instead, and it would've been much better received, imo.

I know it's not a bad game perse, but certainly not a great one because I didn't even bother to finish it really.

 

[Speedymanic]

Those answers actually made me feel better about the game, but I guess the title was inevitable since apparently the OP didn't realise that a game which rates you on your ability to kill your target undetected was a stealth game.

Hitman isn't a stealth game in the same you'd classify MGS or SC as a stealth game.

It also doesn't just rate on your ability to kill a target undetected, it rates you on your methods, if you made it look like an accident, how many others you killed, your notoriety level, etc. As others have said, it's more a puzzle game than pure stealth.

 

[Secks4Food]

The only issue for me is the treatment of veteran voice actors. All those other things you mentioned can work well if IO does it well. Cinematic and environmental take downs can be awesome (I like the idea of using the environment against my enemies), a cover mechanic makes sense, for hiding and taking cover if you blow it, and set pieces can be awesome as long as they don't go super over the top and it's just a pacing thing, and checkpoints, well, as long as its handled well.

All the things you mentioned can be awesome if handled well.

Exactly, new features don't make a game suck, they just add more choices for how you want to play/replay a game. Even set piece shoot outs, which most people assume will cut down on the replayability of a level, can be really awesome if used correctly. Just change enemy layouts/paths each time you replay it and I can see myself playing these levels many times over, and of course the option for stealth is always welcome. The lack of Jesper Kyd and David Bateson really sucks, but their absence has no influence on gameplay so it's not exactly a deal breaker.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Hitman isn't a stealth game in the same you'd classify MGS or SC as a stealth game.

It also doesn't just rate on your ability to kill a target undetected, it rates you on your methods, if you made it look like an accident, how many others you killed, your notoriety level, etc. As others have said, it's more a puzzle game than pure stealth.

Stealth != moving in a low crouch.

For a game to be a stealth game it simply needs to predominately revolve around the player using obfuscation and misdirection to move around undetected. Using a disguise is mechanically interchangeable with a number of stealth techniques such as cloaking or "safe-spots".

Secondly I'll forgive you slightly since you apparently only ever played Blood Money from the description you just gave. The second Hitman game was subtitled "Silent Assassin", a rating which you could only achieve if you completed the entire mission with no more than one kill and one instance of your cover being blown.

And lastly, it's not a puzzle game. It's a stealth adventure game.

 

[MMaRsu]

Stealth != moving in a low crouch.

For a game to be a stealth game it simply needs to predominately revolve around the player using obfuscation and misdirection to move around undetected. Using a disguise is mechanically interchangeable with a number of stealth techniques such as cloaking or "safe-spots".

Secondly I'll forgive you slightly since you apparently only ever played Blood Money from the description you just gave. The second Hitman game was subtitled "Silent Assassin", a rating which you could only achieve if you completed the entire mission with no more than one kill and one instance of your cover being blown.

And lastly, it's not a puzzle game. It's a stealth adventure game.

I've played all three and I consider it a semi puzzle game. Not in a traditional sense, but I wouldn't call this a traditional stealth adventure either lol.

 

[Ahoi-Brause]

Exactly, new features don't make a game suck, they just add more choices for how you want to play/replay a game. Even set piece shoot outs, which most people assume will cut down on the replayability of a level, can be really awesome if used correctly. Just change enemy layouts/paths each time you replay it and I can see myself playing these levels many times over, and of course the option for stealth is always welcome. The lack of Jesper Kyd and David Bateson really sucks, but their absence has no influence on gameplay so it's not exactly a deal breaker.

But they even said they're going to take away choices.

 

[ZombieFred]

But they even said they're going to take away choices.

No. Stop making facts out of an opinion right now.

View PostNick@IO, on 09 June 2011 - 10:01 AM, said:


Sandbox isn't gone, choice isn't gone. We're crafting a Hitman game here, folks. The demo shows you certain things that we want to highlight right now. It will inevitably come across as slightly linear because people only see it played through in one way but, trust me, there's loads of ways to do it. Some of the people that have had hands on here have played it in wildly different ways.

Check this Site and its topics for anything you want to know fact first, before putting lies about the game from your mouth

 

[Koopakiller]

There's different degrees of choice.
Contracts also had choices but it was much more linear than Blood Money.
Absolution sounds even more linear than Contracts.

 

[dc89]

I love Chaos Theory too. You should really give Blood Money a shot... it's quite unlike any game you've ever played.

Currently playing Chaos Theory. Brilliant game.

Also if you don't fancy playing Blood Money I suggest watching The Auzzie Gamer on Youtube.

His play throughs are pretty funny.

Needless to say - spoilers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wok3XScRMo

Mission 6 of BM. I love his sound effects.

 

[Secks4Food]

There's different degrees of choice.
Contracts also had choices but it was much more linear than Blood Money.
Absolution sounds even more linear than Contracts.

I don't know how you came to this conclusion, Contracts has some of the best, biggest, most open, most option filled levels in the series. Traditions of the Trade/The Beldingford Manor are the gold standard of Hitman level design, imo. A level like A Murder of Crows from Blood Money, on the other hand, completely squanders its hugeness and offers one of the most straightforward levels in the game.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I've played all three and I consider it a semi puzzle game. Not in a traditional sense, but I wouldn't call this a traditional stealth adventure either lol.

There are 4 Hitman games.

I don't know how you came to this conclusion, Contracts has some of the best, biggest, most open, most option filled levels in the series. Traditions of the Trade/The Beldingford Manor are the gold standard of Hitman level design, imo. A level like A Murder of Crows from Blood Money, on the other hand, completely squanders its hugeness and offers one of the most straightforward levels in the game.

The trouble with Contracts was that they tried too hard to make open engagement a viable strategy, which just felt kind of off. The Beldingford Manor was definitely amazing though.

 

[Tomat]

Pretty much a damage control interview.
Game is gonna suck.

Can you fault them for it? The game hasn't been received well by fans at all. I'm one of those fans, but this interview reassures me a tad bit.

Still not convinced, but we shall see.

 

[dc89]

In the cinematic trailer we saw when Diana says '47' is that her old VA? The one they didn't carry on with?

If so that sucks.

 

[Ahoi-Brause]

No. Stop making facts out of an opinion right now.

As if you're doing anything else, except for damage control.
Here are some quotes for you:

IO's objective to make up with some of the more outdated gameplay mechanics in the series. "The old hitman games are obese and they have their place, but they are quite severe and is heavily based on trial-and-error," says Blystad. "We wanted to create an experience that captures the soul of the old games, but makes them available to the modern player."

and

"With the Instinct, you can see from your hiding that he will go left and you can go right to avoid him, instead of just blindly choosing one of two directions. We have removed much of this trial -and-error, and instead give the player a real choice, because you now know what you decide. "

and

Elverdam continues: "Sometimes in previous games got a feeling that they had an enormous amount of options, but you do not necessarily understand the consequences to those choices.

and

Working his way up the building triggered a sequence that was more appreciably cinematic than in previous Hitman games. He ran up a staircase, taking out a number of cops below by shooting a chandelier. A police helicopter was called in, whose relentless machinegun-fire was destroying his cover, but he leapt thrillingly to a nearby building.

I can go on all day.

How about you stop trying to sell your gut-feeling as fact and quote some dodgy pr-bullshit as undenyable truth even when 90% of developer quotes say something else and they're keeping it vague in their statements about "sandbox" so they can backpedal easier later?
My concerns are justified through statements of developers, previews of the game and the media that has been released so far.

You cling to some outdated pr-bullshit statement they made even prior to E3.

Not everybody is so much in love with multi-billion dollar corporations that he gobbles down their PR as true and even does free damage control for them online.

 

[MMaRsu]

There are 4 Hitman games.



The trouble with Contracts was that they tried too hard to make open engagement a viable strategy, which just felt kind of off. The Beldingford Manor was definitely amazing though.

I know there are 4, I try to forget Contracts.

 

[Ahoi-Brause]

I know there are 4, I try to forget Contracts.

Good choice. Contracts was also the game that tried the whole "so dark and edgy" approach that absolution is now taking and it's the weakest hitman game by far.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I know there are 4, I try to forget Contracts.

Heh, I was just being a smart arse. The reason I think of the series as more adventure than puzzle is that the specific puzzle implementation reminds me more of classic adventure games from Sierra or Lucasarts than what you usually see in a puzzle game, only far less obtuse.

It's about finding the right item to mix with the right door or NPC, but instead of having to combine the rotting salmon with the tanning booth to cause the roid packed security guy to turn away and vomit, you need to find the pool boy and steal his shorts so that the roid dude thinks you belong there.

 

[Ahoi-Brause]

Heh, I was just being a smart arse. The reason I think of the series as more adventure than puzzle is that the specific puzzle implementation reminds me more of classic adventure games from Sierra or Lucasarts than what you usually see in a puzzle game, only far less obtuse.

It's about finding the right item to mix with the right door or NPC, but instead of having to combine the rotting salmon with the tanning booth to cause the roid packed security guy to turn away and vomit, you need to find the pool boy and steal his shorts so that the roid dude thinks you belong there.

Exactly. The games even had quite a few dialogues with npcs, even targets - very adventure-esque!
"CLEAN TOWELS FOR MR WULF"

 

[Tacitus_]

I'd advise anyone trying to discuss the news to disregard Ahoi-Brause. He's been trying to compare the game to worst examples he could think of, including Dragon Age 2 (press A to awesome was his quotes regarding Absolution in the previous thread).

And no Ahoi, I'm not a viral marketer. I just think you're nuts.

 

[Koopakiller]

I don't know how you came to this conclusion, Contracts has some of the best, biggest, most open, most option filled levels in the series. Traditions of the Trade/The Beldingford Manor are the gold standard of Hitman level design, imo. A level like A Murder of Crows from Blood Money, on the other hand, completely squanders its hugeness and offers one of the most straightforward levels in the game.

Sure, Contracts had some openness but compared to Blood Money it's no contest. Plus even though the Manor and the Slaughterhouse were cool levels I didn't feel that they had the same level of polish as something like Murder of Crows. It's one thing to make an open level, it's another thing to make it as compelling as the levels in Blood Money are.

 

[Ahoi-Brause]

I'd advise anyone trying to discuss the news to disregard Ahoi-Brause. He's been trying to compare the game to worst examples he could think of, including Dragon Age 2 (press A to awesome was his quotes regarding Absolution in the previous thread).

And no Ahoi, I'm not a viral marketer. I just think you're nuts.

It's not like I'm the only one who is skeptical about this game, I'm just the most vocal about it.

 

[Tacitus_]

It's not like I'm the only one who is skeptical about this game, I'm just the most vocal about it.

Oh, there's nothing wrong about being skeptical about this game, I'm skeptical about it as well. I just think you jump across the line and then some.

 

[likedamaster]

Doesn't matter. Played all the Hitmans. And unless this one tries to frustrate me & piss me off deliberately at ever corner, I'm going to play it, and love it. Anyway, sounds good from what I read.

 

[commedieu]

It's not like I'm the only one who is skeptical about this game, I'm just the most vocal about it.

There is no skepticism at this point. IO statements /Gameplay videos have all shown the game is ruined, as far as a direct comparison to the original franchise. I know you get into it in this thread, but its pointless bud. Its going to be nothing like the Original franchise, just as GTA4 was nothing like the previous titles imo.

They are taking the silly approach to try to be edgy and broaden the audience when they should really just make a new IP to do this, or just make a FPS if their goal is capturing the ADD COD audience, and fail like all the rest. Its pathetic when devs do this, and I hate to see it happen to Hitman, as its a very good & unique franchise. Everything they've included and addressed so far is dumbing down the game to add generic yeah-me-too features. It was a simple game design originally, and it was executed well.

Hitman should have been revamped with scale/story/visuals/improved fighting, not superhero fighting, but just a few more moves. I've loved the series, and never had any real issues with the controls, I know others have, but its not like at any moment I ever felt the game was too hard?!?!? Egh... im stopping right now.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Doesn't matter. Played all the Hitmans. And unless this one tries to frustrate me & piss me off deliberately at ever corner, I'm going to play it, and love it. Anyway, sounds good from what I read.

I totally read your username as "Like A Hamster".

 

[wolfmat]

Yeah, like every level is gonna end in a turret sequence. Who cares if there's the odd cinematic shootout?

Spoiler

I mean, Blood Money ended on that note. It was okay there, that showed you could really do something awesome with cinematic shit. Fuckin blew everyone away, no?

— The previews so far have looked at one level
— Cinematic takedowns aren't a dealbreaker
— Occasional shootouts could make the story work at last
— Environmental kills were always a huge part of the games
— The AI has improved like crazy
— The graphics engine is modern
— You don't have to use the press-A-to-win features
— The enemies are more diverse (!!!!)

Let's list shit that would break Hitman, but isn't mentioned anywhere:
— Constant voice-in-ear nonsense
— GTA-style openworld
— Linear level design
— Mandatory shootouts for killing the target
— Ignorance towards bad execution in the stats
— An emo cunt storyline
— Metal soundtrack
— QTEs
— No item poisoning magic

PC Gamer UK's recent podcast has a segment about their impressions of the demonstration. Listen to it, it really doesn't sound as awful as you all are making it out to be. In fact, they're reporting about numerous needless attentions to detail that'll make your playthroughs 'your own' just as much as the previous games did.

 

[Philll]

I'm loving how positive opinions are perfectly fine, based on the small amount of info we have. Negative ones however, as yet another double standard reveals itself, are not.

You only need to look at the development team of the first four games in comparison to Absolution's to see why you should be worried. Take a close look at their last few games and see what similarities you can point out. Combine that with the fact it's 2011 and everything gets dumbed down to nauseating levels and you've got yourself an action orientated shooter. While we're quoting the developers, let's not forget:

One of the problems with old Hitman was that unless you were an expert in the game, would you look like a real little killer," says Tore Blystad. "This time it's not hard to be a good assassin. Instead, it's hard to keep the situation under control, and hold yourself back from going berserk. We'd rather try to tempt the stealthy players to go into a more action-oriented direction

They can offer as many choices / sandbox levels / PR lines of bullshit as they like. At the end of the day it's going to be a streamlined shooter and if you open your eyes there are more than enough clues alluding to this already. Time will prove me right, as if nobody ever learns their mistake with these "new directions" a lot of games have gone in, so if you're expecting a solid Hitman game that caters to the type of gameplay you could previously find, you're going to be severely disappointed.

What irks me is that all games previous to this worked nicely on PC and consoles. With their comments, it sounds more like an excuse to dumb it down rather than an actual reason. Oh, and the "piracy" factor of course. Funny that was never heard of until now.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Anyone being overwhelmingly positive or negative about this game is being silly given all of the mixed messages.

 

[Ahoi-Brause]

I'm loving how positive opinions are perfectly fine, based on the small amount of info we have. Negative ones however, as yet another double standard reveals itself, are not.

You only need to look at the development team of the first four games in comparison to Absolution's to see why you should be worried. Take a close look at their last few games and see what similarities you can point out. Combine that with the fact it's 2011 and everything gets dumbed down to nauseating levels and you've got yourself an action orientated shooter. While we're quoting the developers, let's not forget:



They can offer as many choices / sandbox levels / PR lines of bullshit as they like. At the end of the day it's going to be a streamlined shooter and if you open your eyes there are more than enough clues alluding to this already. Time will prove me right, as if nobody ever learns their mistake with these "new directions" a lot of games have gone in, so if you're expecting a solid Hitman game that caters to the type of gameplay you could previously find, you're going to be severely disappointed.

What irks me is that all games previous to this worked nicely on PC and consoles. With their comments, it sounds more like an excuse to dumb it down rather than an actual reason. Oh, and the "piracy" factor of course. Funny that was never heard of until now.

I totally agree on every single point.

 

[Tacitus_]

Anyone being overwhelmingly positive or negative about this game is being silly given all of the mixed messages.

Tru dat

 

[Ether_Snake]

So you guys basically read the OP, or not, and decided that the game was going to play the opposite way of what they described, and now you bitch about it.

This sounds like a Silent Hill thread.

 

[Philll]

Anyone being overwhelmingly positive or negative about this game is being silly given all of the mixed messages.

That's one way to look at it.

However, if we all sat on our hands and swallowed everything developers fed us, it'd still be mandatory to have glowing objects and visible take down notifications in Deus Ex 3.

I know they're listening too. They've commented on it since. The game is still in the early development stage so now would be the best time to voice your concerns.

If you don't have any, that's great, developers love nothing more than catering towards gamers with the care factor of a brick. For those who do care about one of the last challenging series in existence, it's a different story. We don't need yet another arbitrary violence simulator with the same goal as every other modern first and third person shooter.

 

[Ahoi-Brause]

That's one way to look at it.

However, if we all sat on our hands and swallowed everything developers fed us, it'd still be mandatory to have glowing objects and visible take down notifications in Deus Ex 3.

I know they're listening too. They've commented on it since. The game is still in the early development stage so now would be the best time to voice your concerns.

If you don't have any, that's great, developers love nothing more than catering towards gamers with the care factor of a brick. For those who do care about one of the last challenging series in existence, it's a different story. We don't need yet another arbitrary violence simulator with the same goal as every other modern first and third person shooter.

And again I agree with every single point.

 

[wolfmat]

Just vote with your wallet.

Real talk: If you want to be a game designer, go for it, by all means. The sideline gamer comments don't really interest as much as you'd like to though. At least not at this point. The game design is done, and has been for a long time. Sure, negative buzz matters, but that's what the PR machine is for. They'll fucking drown that out with ads and shit. You know the drill.

This is posed to be a million seller after all. It's coming after the movie (whatever that was), so it's still got some momentum from that, and the series has a good underground name, so they're setting it up to blow up.

If you don't like the outcome, again, vote with your wallet.

 

[Philll]

If you don't like the outcome, again, vote with your wallet.

Give one example where voting with your wallet has made a significant difference in a market saturated with casual gamers who wouldn't know their Agent 47 from their Master Chief.

For every seasoned gamer who doesn't buy one of these nerfed titles in what was once a respectable series, 5 clueless people looking at a helicopter chasing the bald man with guns who knows kung fu - will. That's the point of streamlining it.

This isn't the mention the amount of old fans who will buy it believing it will be the same, they'll at least trick a lot of them the first time around.

I'm sure we'll get plenty "well, it's okay, it's not a Hitman game but it sure is fun" as if it's any consolation, but we already have that dumbed down fun in more games than you've had hot dinners. I guess it's only till there is no variation in gameplay that gamers will wake up to themselves.

 

[RevDM]

Give one example where voting with your wallet has made a significant difference in a market saturated with casual gamers who wouldn't know their Agent 47 from their Master Chief.

For every seasoned gamer who doesn't buy one of these nerfed titles in what was once a respectable series, 5 clueless people looking at a helicopter chasing the bald man with guns who knows kung fu - will. That's the point of streamlining it.

This isn't the mention the amount of old fans who will buy it believing it will be the same, they'll at least trick a lot of them the first time around.

I'm sure we'll get plenty "well, it's okay, it's not a Hitman game but it sure is fun" as if it's any consolation, but we already have that dumbed down fun in more games than you've had hot dinners. I guess it's only till there is no variation in gameplay that gamers will wake up to themselves.

Not exactly voting with wallet, but I remember gamers boycotted I think it was a Battlefield game before its release because they wanted to charge for different weapons, the feature was ultimately removed.

 

[wolfmat]

Look, Philll, I understand your frustration in principle. I was there myself numerous times with other titles (sometimes justified, sometimes not; for example, I assumed SWAT 4 would turn out to be shit, and was oh so wrong).

But if all you do is complain, you're actually doing less than voting with your wallet.

Furthermore, the fact remains that this game is already pretty far along. The more basic a gameplay mechanic in it is, the less likely is a change. It's really expensive to yank something that's been part of the rudimentary design for years out of a game. The developers really don't have choice in a lot of things once a title is on the final stretch. At least fiscally, it thus is smarter to just stick with edgy mechanics and get the most out of them. Especially if the only group that's got such focused complaints is a tiny fragment of the target audience.

What you're doing is you're inherently assuming they didn't try to reach as many people as possible in earlier iterations. They did. All the changes they made to the formula in Blood Money, for example, were made to maximize the appeal.

Of course they want to continue doing that, they want to sell games. That's their raison d'etre from a biz perspective. And they've figured that those features are along those lines after carefully considering.

If this one turns out really bad though, while it may sell, you also have to see that there are actual gamers behind the series. They want a good game, of course. Currently, they seem to be convinced that this one is gonna be good. If it turns out that they've operated in a delusional state all this time despite the fact that they should basically know what they're doing, they'll figure that out once reviews hit, at the latest. And they'll take that input into consideration, and iterate.

 

[Ahoi-Brause]

But if all you do is complain, you're actually doing less than voting with your wallet.

No offense, but what are you on?
If he just "votes" with his wallet they'll go cry wolf and blame piracy for their shit sales, which they will probably do anyways.
If we cause a shitstorm online they'll at least know why they lost their sales.

Why are you trying to silence him?

 

[Philll]

Look, Philll, I understand your frustration in principle. I was there myself numerous times with other titles (sometimes justified, sometimes not; for example, I assumed SWAT 4 would turn out to be shit, and was oh so wrong).

But if all you do is complain, you're actually doing less than voting with your wallet.

Great. Except you've gone off on a tangent without providing an example that has made a significant difference, I thought that was the point we were discussing.

I'm not buying it until it's confirmed it will at least be reminiscent of the older titles, with instinct mode not affecting all difficulty modes or choices through levels.

I wouldn't call it voting with my wallet, I'd call it not buying a bad game because I don't want to. Voting with my wallet implies it will make a difference in the sea of sales that won't be made up of fans who liked the traditional style of play.

---edit---

And as above, crying piracy will quash any criticisms of it being a bad game and people not wanting to pay for it

 

[wolfmat]

No offense, but what are you on?
If he just "votes" with his wallet they'll go cry wolf and blame piracy for their shit sales, which they will probably do anyways.
If we cause a shitstorm online they'll at least know why they lost their sales.

Why are you trying to silence him?

This is a legitimate discussion. We're just detailing our thinking. I'm not trying to silence anyone; quite the opposite, I'm giving him fodder for counter arguments.

And who they blame — what do I care?

The shitstorm attitude doesn't work, that's all I'm saying here. Because it's not really a shitstorm. All you have is your cloudy opinion about what a Hitman game should be like, and your online posts that have impact in secular communities; they've got a title that has complete funding, a PR strategy, is nearing completion, all that.

I mean, how would you even know it's a legitimate verbal online shitstorm? Who's actually complaining? Is there some kind of petition or something? Is there even a consensus about what's being criticized?

Without even those basic aspects, there really isn't much to work with. Just a developer counting down features and a shapeless group of people saying "I don't like this" on occasion.

I see a couple of mock JPEGs. So that's your voice? Alright. Hitman Absolution, in stores soon!

I really don't understand your thinking in that regard. How are they even supposed to get constructive criticism out of that stuff?

 

[Philll]

All you have is your cloudy opinion about what a Hitman game should be like

If referencing 4 Hitman games as a definition of what a Hitman game should be is somehow askew... wait... what?

The shitstorm attitude doesn't work, that's all I'm saying here.

Yes it does. I just gave two examples. Want some more? Did Black Ops have dedicated servers? How many games since MW2 have specifically stated dedicated servers will be available as a selling point? Have you not seen how developers have reacted to the criticisms of Final Fantasy 13? Oblivion > Skyrim? Dragon Age 2? ?????

I'm finding it hard to argue with someone who has either forgotten about or doesn't know of any of this.

I see a couple of mock JPEGs. So that's your voice?

When I can get developer reactions specifically to those images, to me it stands out more than lonely forum comments that will be buried in pages of other random opinions. I know they've seen them, they've commented to me personally. If you cannot understand the jist of what they're trying to convey as if it needs to be a word document specifically stating it, stop looking. They aren't exactly subtle.

Have you got a better suggestion to more effectively grab their attention in a way that they will acknowledge it? I've love to hear it. The method I used seemed to achieved everything I intended it to. 30GB of bandwidth on the first image alone was proof of that.

 

[SketchTheArtist]

So you guys basically read the OP, or not, and decided that the game was going to play the opposite way of what they described, and now you bitch about it.

This sounds like a Silent Hill thread.

.

 

[Angry Fork]

lol Conviction really ruined things when it comes to fan expectation. Everyone is worried now. Franchises have been getting fucked over this gen all over the place but Conviction is the one that really broke the camels back. I wish I knew the director's reaction or if Ubisoft plans on going back to old school stealth for the next SC game.

 

[Old Gimlet Eyes]

lol Conviction really ruined things when it comes to fan expectation. Everyone is worried now. Franchises have been getting fucked over this gen all over the place but Conviction is the one that really broke the camels back. I wish I knew the director's reaction or if Ubisoft plans on going back to old school stealth for the next SC game.

Double Agent did a fine job of hurting Splinter Cell. Conviction was the death blow. It is sad to see the Tom Clancyize accessibility happen to Hitman as well. Gotta chase those sales I guess.

 

[wolfmat]

If referencing 4 Hitman games as a definition of what a Hitman game should be is somehow askew... wait... what?

Well, it kind of is. What the previous Hitman games did doesn't cut it anymore. You've got animation, collision, sound, menu structure, story, voicework and other basic stuff that has to be reworked. Then you need new levels that learn from the mistakes of the previous games. The assets need to be on a higher level to compete. You need to therefore sell more because the production cost is much higher.
If you start from there, then a blurb like "just make Blood Money with new levels and cooler graphics" is hard to take seriously. The new engine already does so much more, so that has to be integrated. Already, you're not making the same game anymore. For instance, NPCs engaging you much more specifically according to your uniform. That's a huge difference to the kind of binary attitude they had before. Game changer.

I obviously can't justify much here because I'm at the same point you guys are with knowledge about how it's going to go down. And I don't want to. But you should already see that Blood Money can't naively be reproduced.

You have to add to that the ambition of the people involved. Who really wants to basically do the same thing yet again? Certainly not the typical game designer. So they introduce new mechanics, they're taking risks. And that is necessary for a game to even be relevant nowadays (if you're not CoD).

Yes it does. I just gave two examples. Want some more? Did Black Ops have dedicated servers? How many games since MW2 have specifically stated dedicated servers will be available as a selling point? Have you not seen how developers have reacted to the criticisms of Final Fantasy 13? Oblivion > Skyrim? Dragon Age 2? ?????

Those criticisms were much more concrete and constructive. "We need dedicated servers or your game's multiplayer can't grow properly on the PC". They can process that. Just as an example.

When I can get developer reactions specifically to those images, to me it stands out more than lonely forum comments that will be buried in pages of other random opinions. I know they've seen them, they've commented to me personally. If you cannot understand the jist of what they're trying to convey as if it needs to be a word document specifically stating it, stop looking. They aren't exactly subtle.

I don't think the images are subtle. It's just hard to take them seriously. First, they make me laugh; then they make me think "what's actually the point here?". Then it gets ugly. I really don't see much more than humor and a general opposition to change in them, to be honest. Maybe I'm too dumb though. Not ruling that out!

Have you got a better suggestion to better grab their attention in a way that they will acknowledge it? I've love to hear it.

Well, generally, when you've got a problem with something in a game and want to express that effectively, a good way to do that is to make a YT video where you detail your critique in a manner that it attracts attention on a big scale. Something like that.
If you can form a proper argument that's easy to follow with comments, viewcount and shit, you've got a good starting point, basically. Easy to measure general response and stuff. Low barrier to support or oppose your argument.

 

[njr]

Well, it kind of is. What the previous Hitman games did doesn't cut it anymore. You've got animation, collision, sound, menu structure, story, voicework and other basic stuff that has to be reworked. Then you need new levels that learn from the mistakes of the previous games. The assets need to be on a higher level to compete. You need to therefore sell more because the production cost is much higher.
If you start from there, then a blurb like "just make Blood Money with new levels and cooler graphics" is hard to take seriously. The new engine already does so much more, so that has to be integrated. Already, you're not making the same game anymore. For instance, NPCs engaging you much more specifically according to your uniform. That's a huge difference to the kind of binary attitude they had before. Game changer.

Definitely, I'm sure any gamer wants an improved game.

I obviously can't justify much here because I'm at the same point you guys are with knowledge about how it's going to go down. And I don't want to. But you should already see that Blood Money can't naively be reproduced.

A lot of things have been said about this game by the developers themselves, more so about the engine itself.

You have to add to that the ambition of the people involved. Who really wants to basically do the same thing yet again? Certainly not the typical game designer. So they introduce new mechanics, they're taking risks. And that is necessary for a game to even be relevant nowadays (if you're not CoD).

But with a new engine, it's not so much the same thing. I really don't see a problem with the same style of gameplay, it's been 6 years! I'm sure people who play Legend of Zelda don't mind it either in that same sense.

 

[wolfmat]

A lot of things have been said about this game by the developers themselves, more so about the engine itself.

Sure, but the justification for the new stuff isn't clear so far. I wouldn't want to speculate. And I'm getting tired of this bullshit.

But with a new engine, it's not so much the same thing. I really don't see a problem with the same style of gameplay, it's been 6 years! I'm sure people who play Legend of Zelda don't mind it either in that same sense.

But it is the same style of gameplay, just with new aspects (like no sat map, a heli sequence — o noez). Just like a new Zelda has some new trick up its sleeve, some fat cut off, stuff like that. I really don't see much of a difference if you hold those two against each other.